Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

View

Discuss

Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).

jitendraharlalka writes with this excerpt from Al Jazeera English: "A Pakistani court has issued a ban on the social networking site Facebook after a user-generated contest page encouraged members to post caricatures of Prophet Mohammed. The Lahore High Court on Wednesday instructed the Pakistani Telecommunications Authority (PTA) to ban the site after the Islamic Lawyers Movement complained that a page called 'Draw Mohammed Day' is blasphemous. ... 'We have already blocked the URL link and issued instruction to Internet service providers,' Khurram Mehran, a spokesperson for the PTA, said."

morality can easily exist without religion. In fact its better. In the bible, people are punished terribly and painfully for even the slightest sin, or possibly forgiven for the worst sins if they can make jesus orgasm. Oh, and if you don't, you get tortured for eternity. And people think Gitmo was bad. Hitler ain't got SHIT on God. God is perhaps the most unethical proposed existence I have ever heard of.

Human rights? They are fought by religion, and protected by the same people who work to protect truth, science, and logic.

While I agree with you completely, I don't think that's the big reason why morality without religion is better than with. The big reason is that a grown person should be able to tell between right and wrong without the threat of punishment by a glorified Santa Klaus hanging over their heads. If they can't, that just shows them to be immature at best, dangerous at worst and, ironically, immoral in either case. What happens when their deity tells them to do something horrible? Oh wait, we already know.

There is a evolutionary basis. Altruism and the morality that comes from it is a beneficial trait to evolve.

There is also a rational basis. Treating others well makes it likely they will return the favor. Cooperation and selflessness creates a better, safer, more prosperous and kinder society for everyone.

What's the basis for following religious morality? Fear of eternal punishment? Hope of eternal reward?

If the physical world is all there is, you'd think killing or mistreating someone would be worse than in a world where an eternal soul exists. Kill someone in reality and you destroy that person forever. In the fantasy world of religion, the person continues to exist and so why it's such a big deal to kill remains unclear.

Convincing others that you're treating them well while all the time stealing more for yourself, and quietly impregnating your friends wives is a much better evolutionary strategy. Being nice most of the time, but backstabbing occasionally is also more rational, but less "moral".

It seems that we also have evolved a sense of cheating and fairness, so it's not necessarily like that. We have the capacity to understand that everyone backstabbing is less beneficial than everyone cooperating, and also the capacity to spot backstabbers.

I don't disagree completely with you, however. Altruism and egoism are present in everyone. A morality that acknownledges this and deals with it seems much more realistic, fair and productive than one that is hypocritical about it. It's very possible to act in self-interest and still be a benefit to others, and it's also possible to claim to be altruistic when you're really not, like Mother Theresa.

What makes it worse? If the physical is all there is, then all killing a person does is remove a roadblock/annoyance/competitor/aggressor. So what?
The above has been answered from a sociopath's point of view. I'd rather have a sociopath neighbor who believes in eternal punishment and reward than a sociopath neighbor who is unencumbered by those weights.

I'd rather not have a sociopath neighbor. A secular society that encourages altruism is likely much better to deal with that problem than a society based on superstition and punishment. Many negative behaviors have been condoned by religion and many sociopaths think they're doing god's work. If you're the wrong kind of person and the sociopath kills you for the right religious reason, you'd still be screwed and the sociopath would think he's being rewarded.

I don't think I have to explain why forever erasing your one and only existance is worse than not erasing your existance at all.

Finally, you reason based on a world filled with sociopaths? Usually atheists are the ones blamed for cynicism and a bleak world view...

morality can easily exist without religion. In fact its better. In the bible, people are punished terribly and painfully for even the slightest sin, or possibly forgiven for the worst sins if they can make jesus orgasm. Oh, and if you don't, you get tortured for eternity. And people think Gitmo was bad. Hitler ain't got SHIT on God. God is perhaps the most unethical proposed existence I have ever heard of.

Human rights? They are fought by religion, and protected by the same people who work to protect truth, science, and logic.

What is the basis for morality without a Higher Power? Why should I follow your morals if the physical is all there is?

You raise a good point. Stanislaw Lem pointed out that if you postulate that there's a god, nothing at all follows from that assumption. If an omnipotent will exists, then by definition everything is already as it wants.

How do you know your dog doesn't need an invisible sky fairy. For all we know animals may have religious beliefs

That's why, when you buy a dog as a puppy and take it home and raise it away from other dogs it always turns out to be a psychotic killer because it doesn't have a chance to learn the religion of its fellows. Seriously, if the only thing stopping dogs killing your family is religion, then dogs must either all be psychically attuned so they can learn their religion in isolation, or their god must speak to each and every one of them personally - in which case he at least sounds a lot more pro-active than all of the human gods who haven't really done much for thousands of years.

You do realise that the Rastafarian religion is based on black supremacy, right? Marcus Garvey was nothing like the laid back stoner that some would portray him as these days, he was a racist radical black nationalist who used violence and intimidation to try to get this way.

I really don't see how racism has any place in a reasonable government.

Actually I have been waiting for this article to come up, I am a Muslim.

First the marriage issue, even among muslim's this age is disputed, however it serves most (pedophile muslim's) and more to the current topic anyone wanting to show Muslim faith in negative light (by todays standards of a western society). This group is quite large and probably growing because of actions of people who share my faith.

The age comes from a reported incident where folks ask Aisha (years later) what her age was at marriage. Then the reply is recorded verbatim, "9". Problem is, at that time and even now, in arabic, if the base is known, it is not mentioned. So even if the age was 19, known base of 10 would not have been part of the reply, reply would have been 9. Anyhow, this is now just an academic discussion and fodder for those who want to debate on this.

Now more to what the article is about Mohammed and his images. Problem here from a muslim perspective is not freedom of speech. According to Muslim faith images of his and other revered muslim figures are forbidden, lest they spiral into idol worship. God and god alone is to be worshiped.

Denying holocast in Germany and a few other countries is a crime. It offends the victims, it has nothing to do with freedom of speech. Cartoons of Prophet Mohammed is akin to this, but no problem, who cares about these terrorists, freedom of speech must prevail, 1.6 billion be dammed.

I like to think of myself as an educated person, a muslim who grew up in a western society, learning values of both. From what I see, the gap between west and Islam is only going to grow with stuff like cartoons of Mohammed, these guys are akin to suscide bombers of afghanistan, working towards inciting violence (which BTW is a crime in Canada).

I hope things fix themselves in my life time, I really do. Reality check, they are gonna get worst before getting better. Muslim's need to understand western values and respect them, and west need to understand the Islamic faith and respect it. This is not happening in my lifetime.

Just as Taliban and Alqaeda cannot be made to understand western values, so is the issue with the west. I don't even know who is blind, the west or Islam.

Can't you see its offending 1.6 billion people, yet you go ahead and do it.

I can go on, but those who want to understand my point probably did by reading what I have already said, those who did not never will.

Oh, so you think that denying the holocaust is ok as well and should in fact be encouraged in order to preserver freedom of speach, and that those offended are hyper-sensitive extremists?

Yes, I think that denying the Holocaust should be legal. But why does that mean that it should be encouraged, and why would that help preserving freedom of speech? The evidence is clearly in favor of the Holocaust having existed, but that does not mean that it should be a crime to say that you don't believe it happened. Of course you would be ridiculed and criticized, but freedom of speech does not mean freedom from criticism.

I also find the comparison somewhat ridiculous. The Holocaust was a genocide of enormous proportions, and it is understandable that people are very upset when you claim that it didn't happen. It is not in any way comparable to a few cartoons. It is not understandable that people are so upset about a few cartoons that they threaten to kill the cartoonist or even actually physically assault him, nor is it understandable that you demand that freedom of speech should be curtailed because of it.

First off, I'm not jumping on the "Muslim = Terrorist" bandwagon, or throwing more intolerance at Muslim's than I am willing to throw at any other religion.

Denying holocast in Germany and a few other countries is a crime. It offends the victims, it has nothing to do with freedom of speech. Cartoons of Prophet Mohammed is akin to this, but no problem, who cares about these terrorists, freedom of speech must prevail, 1.6 billion be dammed.

Two problems; if I, in the US, deny the Holocaust the German authorities will not try to arrest me. Second, if someone in Germany (or elsewhere) publicly denies the Holocaust, no one will attempt to murder them, or their families. This is a pretty large difference between approaches.

I personally am a big fan of self-censorship, if you don't like what I'm saying or drawing, ignore me, change the channel, cancel your subscription. No one is forcing you to look at these cartoons and drawings. This is a far more tasteful solution than banning everything (under threat of death in some cases) that someone, somewhere, in the world might find offensive. I personally find all religion somewhat distasteful, so can we ban it too? (I don't mean that in complete seriousness, religion is fine, until it starts hurting others).

These cartoons serve a VERY valuable service, outside of pure "incitement", they, like all political cartoons, serve to highlight the absurdities in something. Sadly some sects of radical (and I would call them evil) Muslims lack the humor and introspection to realize that they are acting out the very thing that the cartoons are highlighting. They, with their reaction, are proving the cartoonists point.

Muslims have a very bad image right now, and I think they deserve it. They need to reign in the creepy, totalitarian, rights abusing, and violent bits of their religion. They need to forcibly overthrow the corrupt bits of their culture. To expect others to live by their rules is silly, and plain wrong. I really don't care one bit what religion or culture you belong to, but who the hell are you to tell me what I can and cannot do?

This isn't a Muslim verus the mythical "West" issue. If most Muslims followed their faith without enforcing their beliefs on others, or hurting people for not giving a crap about their pet religion, then no one would care. Well... I still would, since parts of the Muslim faith go completely against the ideas of freedom, and the ability of people to choose their own lives (the role of women, ect...) I have no expectation of you following my beliefs and world view, why would you expect me to do otherwise for you?

I do not believe Islam is capable of reform. In the West, political power comes from the people, if we forget the usurpers like lobbyists, corrupt politicians and the like. At least most constitutions of Western countries enshrine this notion. In Islamic countries, political power comes from Allah or at least that is what most Muslims believe and the usurpers like Mubarak and the Saudi royal family are aberrations. With the political will of the people denied by the people, the only true wielders of power in Islamic lands will be the mullahs and imams. These are the worst sort of people for wielding such power since they are answerable to no one. They will argue they are answerable to Allah but their own minds get to interpret how their actions are judged while here on Earth. So we get stupidities like the Saudi morality police, the fatwas against infidels they don't like, and the capricious nature of Islamic law; basing law on an out of date apocryphal book written by a probable late stage schizophrenic is not a basis for a successful society.

Denying holocast in Germany and a few other countries is a crime. It offends the victims, it has nothing to do with freedom of speech. Cartoons of Prophet Mohammed is akin to this, but no problem, who cares about these terrorists, freedom of speech must prevail, 1.6 billion be dammed.

First off, Germany probably doesn't have the free-speech ideals that the US has. I don't think anybody vigorously defends a near-absolute position on free-speech the way the US does. When you get a "Western" distaste for censorship, you may be getting a bias from the US.

Second, Germany doesn't have "denying the holocaust" as a crime to protect the victims of it. They have it as a crime to give them some way to lock up the wackos who would try to restart white/aryan supremacy political groups. These groups are perfectly legal in the US, as long as they don't actually harm anyone while espousing their stupidity. If you want to start a white-supremicist party in the US, you can. I doubt you'll get elected, but you can certainly start it and run.

The same country that so vigorously defends your right to run a white-supremicist party (as long as you don't physically harm anyone, or encourage others to physically harm someone) will also defend others' rights to create cartoons of anyone they feel like, whether that is their President, or your Prophet.

The same people who create cartoons of Mohammed will also create cartoons of Jesus. Judaism doesn't seem to have the central figure to pick on, so I've never really noticed cartoons of David or Elijah. However, to your 1.6 billion Muslims, I raise 300 million to 1.9 billion Christians to be offended. Jesus also preached against idolatry, and yet I've never heard an outcry calling for any cartoonist's death over their pictures. Respecting others' right to disagree, even if it's pathetic behaviour, is a good thing to have. Islam does have some problems here.

I like to think of myself as an educated person, a muslim who grew up in a western society, learning values of both. From what I see, the gap between west and Islam is only going to grow with stuff like cartoons of Mohammed, these guys are akin to suscide bombers of afghanistan, working towards inciting violence (which BTW is a crime in Canada).

It's rather offensive that you equate "cartoons" with "suicide bombers". One gives cause to offend, the other kills. That's not morally equivalent. If Islam teaches that it is, I will lose respect for that religion. I may need to dispose of the copy of the Qu'ran that I do have, since it won't be worth anything to me anymore.

Inciting violence is a crime in Canada, sure. But merely being offensive is not "inciting violence." If I hurl curses at your mother, even if you punch me for it, it is not a crime. Punching me would still be assault. Please be more reasonable in your analogies. These are simply not comparable.

Can't you see its offending 1.6 billion people, yet you go ahead and do it.

So? What if I want to offend 1.6 billion people?

What's the maximum amount of people I should be allowed to offend? 1.5 billion?

About the rest of the post, I won't even comment, as rational discussion of religion looks a bit pointless. After all, I don't know how much value have rational reasonings to someone who believes in sky pixies.

Just as Taliban and Alqaeda cannot be made to understand western values, so is the issue with the west. I don't even know who is blind, the west or Islam.

While I understand how someone could be offended by deliberate provocation on a subject as important to them as religion, I'm going to side with the people drawing silly, satirical cartoons over the people who make violent threats against those artists. It is not ok to murder or threaten someone for drawing a picture. No matter how angry or offended that picture made you feel. The only reason these artists are "inciting violence" is because the people who commit the violence are acting like silly little children.

The fact that we even have to have this discussion is ludicrous. Grow up and understand that the rest of the world does not share your beliefs and that their criticism of your beliefs *in no way* affects your ability to live the life you desire. People are different and they believe different things. If you don't like someone publishing a picture of Mohammed, you don't have to look at it.

Now more to what the article is about Mohammed and his images. Problem here from a muslim perspective is not freedom of speech. According to Muslim faith images of his and other revered muslim figures are forbidden, lest they spiral into idol worship. God and god alone is to be worshiped.

Do you, or any Muslim, actually think the images of Mohammed are going to be worshiped? Because that's the part that makes no sense in all this.

If the Qur'an said "Don't make images of Mohammed" then I can kinda understand. But it says "Don't make images of Mohammed because you shouldn't worship images." Guess what! Not one of the drawings of Mohammed is going to be worshiped. I guarantee you this. So any Muslim with half a brain should be able to look at a drawing of Mohammed with a bomb in his turban and say "No one's going to worship that, so no problem."

Ahh, but the reality is that Muslims do not want a picture of Mohammed being mocked. Nothing about that in the Qur'an, but that doesn't stop many from twisting the words of Mohammed around and using it to incite religious fervor.

And it's for this reason I support the Facebook page. Freedom of religion is important. But it's also important that Freedom of religion not be allowed to override freedom of speech and thought.

Funny thing is, you really have to either admit that the Quran is open to some interpretation, or admit that marrying kids is okay. Some people say that, because sometimes at the time the first digit was left off when it was known (ex a 23 year old marking their age as 3 when it was known that they were in their twenties), so some say Aisha may have been 19. I don't know if that's true or not though, so take that with a grain of salt. Also, some might say that, because such things were products of their time, it should be viewed in the context day. For the hardline theotards though, that's reinterpreting the Quran, which is a big no-no, but you never hear then really caring that their profit is a pedophile. The finer points of logic are often lost on people like that. Muslims can believe whatever they want, but they should think about it. Do you modernize and moderate your faith, or is you god's number one dude a pedophile? Those are your only two options, pick one.

Well, western democracies block cartoon image of children [wordpress.com], so I guess the great karma circle is now complete. Or else it's a death spiral of censorship. Either way, the outrage brigade gets what they want and the rest of us will just have to accept a more restricted web whether we live in Karachi or California.

I think we can all agree that there's a big difference between depictions of child molestation/rape and cartoons poking fun at a religious figure.

What? I fail to see ANY difference. What, you don't think no one has has ever felt that blasphemy was horrid, sick and depraved? I'm pretty sure those terms have been applied to all kinds of blasphemy from all kinds of religions.

Being against child molestation is logical morality. Very, very, very few people will believe that raping a child is acceptable.

Big freakin deal. Since no child is molested in the process of drawing a cartoon all of that is irrelevant.You might as well claim that all those movies out of hollywood are horrid and depraved since murder - an act certainly worse than molestation - is so frequently depicted.

Muhammad is said to have asked her to arrange for him to marry both. Traditional sources dictate that Aisha was six or seven years old when betrothed to Muhammad but the marriage was not consummated until she was nine or ten years old.

You know, I have to give the old goat props in that he invented a much more viral religion than Ronnie Hubbard. You get to marry kids (if you're into that sort of thing), if anyone disagrees with you then it's probably because they're infidels and you may kill them and take their stuff, and you can beat your wife [youtube.com] to keep her in line as long as you do it right. Ron aimed for the idle wealthy. Hammy snared the disenfranchised, uneducated masses. They don't make nearly as much on average, but there's an awful lot more of them.

In the society in which Muhammad and Aisha lived, marrying at 7 and consummating at 10 was not uncommon, either.

Anyway, I don't see why this particular side of Islam is raised so much. It's really nothing but an appeal to emotion, dressed in such a way as to be a surefire flamebait in today's pedo-witchhunt climate.

There are much better, rational reasons to denounce Islam. Let's focus on them. The whole "Muhammad is a pedophile" meme is childish and does a disservice to the cause.

I don't get it. I mean, sure, I respect the Muslim religion, just as I respect Christianity, Buddhism*, etc.

But fuck man, relax. It's just those heathen bastards (who are gonna go to hell according to you anyway) so let them have their fun. Please, tell me, exactly HOW does this defile Mohammad? Dude's been dead for a long time. Trust me, he don't give a damn.

The actual problem is that an image of Mohammed might lead to Mohammed worship instead of worship of Allah. Of course, that's not the way it's treated any more.

That's partly true. There are plenty of images of Mohamed in arabic history books. There are even rulings by various religious authorities that such images are fine. Of course there are also rulings by the more crazy authorities that those images in the books are not OK.

But there is also a whole bunch of attitude about insulting Mohamed that is in addition to the idolatry prohibition. Its comparable to all the ultra-conservative catholics freaking out about Scorsese's "The Last Temptation of Christ" or Serrano's "Piss Christ" - those guys both got plenty of death threats in response to their work.

Between that and the Anti-Choice movement folks who post abortion doctors home addresses and schedules on websites, just in case any of their viewers want to go sniping that day. Hatred is hatred, and just as unacceptable for Christians as it is in Muslims.

People who disagree with abortion view it as murder. People who disagree with the Mohammed images at most can say its "blasphemy". If your going to go after someone, it makes a whole lot more sense to go after someone who you view is a murder than someone who is "defaming" someone who has been dead for centuries.

There is no comparison in this day and age between Islamic violence and violence from almost every other religion.

If you brought Catholics from a few centuries ago back to the future they would have lots of fun with car bombs too.

First, ever heard of Ireland? Second, with that notable exception (which wasn't motivated by religion anyway), Catholics have moved past that. I have no love for the Catholic church but they're not relevant to this conversation.

What I cannot wrap my head around are the instances where radicals want people in other countries,
with different laws, to obey a radical Islamic law. WTF? How would they feel if the United States used violence
to make them obey laws they don't care about? Oh, nevermind...

It's amazing that a bunch of punk kids from Australia, US and UK can have this kind of impact, lol.

Its not them per se, its a slow news day so they got lots of publicity from CNN and Fox at which point it became front page news and the ultra-conservatives couldn't ignore that. That's kinda the way "news" works - its designed to either make you mad or make you sad. This one has been a vicious circle where one group gets to get mad about what another group does in response to news making them mad.

To answer your *, yes, Buddhism pretty much is a religion. Though you'd be hard pressed to find any idol or deities associated with it. It aims to answer the same basic questions and tries to guide you in the same aspects of life.

And also yes, Mohammed has been depicted quite a few times before, but not usually without reprimand or on such large scales. There was a cartoonist who depicted him, with a bomb for a turban, and that caused quite an uproar, as you can imagine. Not too long ago either.

Like some have stated here, there are many schools of Buddhism and their beliefs vary, but in general Buddha is not seen as a deity. It may refer to the historic Gautama Buddha, the concept of Buddha nature or a human that has attained supreme enlightenment. None of these are deities. Other beings in Buddhism, such as the Devas, are closer to what is referred to as deity in other religions, but not quite.

As long as you know your friends are imaginary, what is the harm?
Even children know that their imaginary friends exist in a different reality than other people do.
Just imagine a Christian with a reasonably constructed, imaginary Jesus. "Hey Jesus, what should I do? Oh? Not be an asshat? Great!"

If you do not know that they are imaginary, then you are a loon. Because they are, in fact, imaginary
to everyone else, including the members of your own religion, who imagine them differently. Still,
this case is relatively harmless.

If you do know that they are imaginary, but still go through the motions, then you are just like
the pope and most of the clergy: you don't really believe jack shit, except that you deserve to get
your cut for telling people what you know are lies. For example, pope's complete disregard for
the New Testament ethics is plainly evidenced by his treatment of celibacy, contraceptives, priests who
molest children -- you name it. They are all case 2, and we know they are in it just for the money
and the power. What's the harm, you say?

You are thinking too concretely. Please note the difference :

I believe that unicorns exist

I believe that the idea of unicorns exists

Now consider :

I believe the Ideal Gas Law is true.

I believe the Ideal Gas Law is a reasonable model for simple cases.

If I said 'Santa is generous', I think most people would agree, and not be mislead into thinking that I actually believe there is a Santa. I can believe 'Santa is Generous' without needing to believe that Santa is a real person.

Don't Muslims view Jesus as a prophet as well? So, if what he said was dogma...

According to Muslims, Jesus (and all the prophets before him, such as Moses and Abraham) all said the same things, and brought the same message, as Muhammad. It's just that their message was corrupted [wikipedia.org] by evil Jews and Christians, hence the perceived divergence from Qu'ran.

Muhammad is special in that he is the "Seal of the Prophets" - the final and ultimate prophet of God. Furthermore, his message was recorded exactly as delivered by God through him - this forms the Qu'ran - and preserved in its entirety.

It even makes sense because, for the latter, one guy (whose identity is even unclear) preached the original message, several other guys recorded it, each as he pleases, then a bunch of other guys have met later on to decide which of the recordings to keep and which to throw out, and yet more guys translated them, occasionally creatively reworking in the process.

Islam, though, is a project that is entirely designed, and its implementation overseen, by a single guy, who, by all accounts, was very determined on making that design persist and endure. Looking at the present state of the Islamic world, he has, unfortunately, largely succeeded in that.

This isn't to say that Islam is logical - no religion is. But it is quite internally consistent, so long as you stick to the framework of its axioms. There is considerably less wiggle room there than there is in Christianity.

They believe they have the truth. So, even if you don't believe, you would be sinning against their prophet and Allah. For them, you are simply blind. You don't have the right to a different opinion since yours would be false.

It's the same thing with Christians that follow the rules by the book.

Pretty much. One of my friends in the LDS once told me that it's fairly common practice for his church to secretly "baptize" non-Mormons whom they deem worthy of saving from the evils of whatever religion (or lack of religion) they currently practice. The targets of this event are apparently never told.

I don't think I've ever been secretly inducted into another church, but I'm always careful to be an asshole to everyone just in case. To whit, I asked said friend if the baptism involves sneaking into the target's house and replacing all their underwear. He didn't seem to find that very funny.

I read somewhere that the LDS has branches devoted to this, and that they are so heavily into genealogy because they believe they can baptize dead people by proxy. Thats what some elements of the Church of LDS are actively engaged in, baptizing our dead ancestors into their church so that come Judgement day, they all get to go to heaven (or whatever they actually believe happens, I am not sure).Mind you its no odder than those BA Christians who are actively hoping that Israel will go to war with the Palestinians because if they do it might herald the Second Coming.

Personally, I can't help think the world would be a far better, more peaceful and saner place if all those people who follow religions "of the book" were gone from the Earth.

Islam isn't that far from Christianity...Same thing doesn't manifest itself the other way around in other discussions probably simply because, all things considered, most people here don't really give a frak about Islam; it's virtually not present in their lives. But sure, just different manifestations of the same mechanisms, if it makes you happier; is that disclaimer really needed with every post about some mythology?

blasphemy/blæsfmi/ Show Spelled[blas-fuh-mee] Show IPA–noun,plural-mies.1.impious utterance or action concerning god or sacred things.2.Judaism.a.an act of cursing or reviling God.b.pronunciation of the Tetragrammaton (YHVH) in the original, now forbidden manner instead of using a substitute pronunciation such as Adonai.3.Theology. the crime of assuming to oneself the rights or qualities of God.4.irreverent behavior toward anything held sacred,

Every religion is the "true" one according to its followers. "Blasphemy", in this context, is really only the case when it is done to the mythology held dear by...those who determine whether it is blasphemy or not.

Not "true".

Buddhism, Hinduism, and many other Eastern Religions believe in and practice Pluralism [wikipedia.org]. That is, they think that all paths lead to Heaven. Or in other words, that all religions are true.

Whether or not this stands up to logical scrutiny is a different subject.

I don't agree with how Thunderf00t is conveying his message but he has made an important point. Islamic Censorship has gone way way too far. I support free speech, and secular, rational thinking. I do think that religion is sort of the Human biological equivalent of a computer virus, or malware. (Most Windows users on the face of the Earth are infected with malware of some sort. Equivalently, most Human brains are infected with a Malware called Religion. The virus is different in different parts of the world, but its still a virus.

Computer malware makes computers function in ways it shouldn't to propagate the virus. Religion makes Humans behave in ways or experience things in ways they shouldn't. Computer viruses are created by malicious Humans to steal money, and cover commit other crimes. Religions exist to steal money, and rationalize the committing of other crimes that would not normally be acceptable in secular culture.

I can definitely understand iconoclasm - the desire to prevent mere symbols from being more important than the core idea. Applied to Islam, it would be a prophet's desire that his message not be cheapened by allowing it to be tied too deeply with its imperfect messenger.

What I don't understand is how that is turned around and transformed into these series of death threats (and actions, and laws) that in effect make the depiction of the man more important than the depiction of the beliefs he was supposed to represent.

Is that really the first priority for those who want to spread the ultimate revealed truth of the universe - playing image police against every person who is not a believer? Seems a rather silly priority to have in the context.

What I don't understand is how that is turned around and transformed into these series of death threats (and actions, and laws) that in effect make the depiction of the man more important than the depiction of the beliefs he was supposed to represent.

There's something about the human brain that makes it prone to crazy fanaticism. It doesn't matter if it's Islam, Christianity, or PETA. I really think it's more about the group dynamics and such that bring it about rather than the actual thing people are being fanatical about. Rational thought doesn't really enter into it. It's about defending and maintaining your group, not the actual offense.

My God is real.Your God is not realMy God doesn't want people to do XThis applies to everyone because they're believing in the wrong God.Doing Gods work gets me into heaven.These people insult God, therefore killing them means I'm protecting God.Therefore God owes me a seat.

I'll tell you exactly why: There is a strong sense of condescension behind political correctness and "tolerance".

I think the whole concept distills down to "Oh, we civilized people should be tolerant of others, but these $OTHER_FOLK are less civilized/human and therefore we can't expect them to understand tolerance."

It's a back-handed, dehumanizing degrading of those they claim to "tolerate", while they smugly hide behind politically correct terminology.

A little harshly worded, but I agree with the parent (mod him up). The "Don't poke a bear with a stick" post is just saying it doesn't make sense to go out of your way to harm people- he is not saying you should avoid offending people at your own expense. You have more choices than just submitting to everyone's will or having zero concern for anyone.

But going out of your way to say "fuck you, here's what we think of your religion" just to try to provoke a group of extremists who are prone to violence doesn't make much sense.

It makes plenty of sense in the same way that mass protests against a misbehaving government make sense. If you tell them "the emperor has no clothes" just by yourself they might kill you. If thousands or millions say something is crazy, irrational and wrong then it is harder for those in power to push back. There is power in groups of people who are unwilling to be cowed by those in power. This demand that we "respect" their religious idol is an attempt to coerce MY behavior and I'm not willing to be coerced. When hundreds of thousands of people point out that they are being a bully and aren't going to take it any more then the crazies lose power.

This is a religion that, when a woman is raped, gives the rapists a stern talking to, then beats the woman to death for being such a slut. It's ful of moral values straight from the middle ages; things other religions are emarassed they did 500 years ago are still done under Sharia law in many places in the world today. Saying "fuck you, here's what we think of your religion" is completely appropriate. Tolerance of this culture is immoral.

I don't support any of the two views (extremists and provocateurs), but the message you are passing is:

"Certain religious people have some sensibility to something. If you provoke them and they kill you, it's your fault".

It's that kind of message that encourages the provocateurs, not the sensibility. It's just disrespectful (while maybe a service) to make fun of other people's sensibilities, religious or not. But it's simply unacceptable to consider such a reaction acceptable.

Religion is free to tell their believers what they cannot do. But they cross the line when they want non-believers to abide to their laws.

It's not to get a rise out of htem, it's to demonstrate to a small minority of radicals that their extreme religious beliefs do not trump the free speech of others, and that the attempts of extremists to kill and censor such speech will not be tolerated by the world community.

I don't know that I'd call it a bad thing, but I, personally, tend to respect things which deserve respect, because I, y'know, actually feel respect for them. I don't respect things just to spare someone's feelings.

Everybody Draw Mohammed Day is only being done to prove those Muslims who who are offended by it.

Actually, no, it's about freedom of speech, and about proving that chilling effect no longer works when we have the courage to stand up to them. Here's a much better explanation [youtube.com] from the guy who started it.

when someone gets hurt or killed those who are on the receiving end of the violence will act as though they are surprised by it.

Surprised? No, but disappointed as hell. Whatever happened to "I disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"?

No one should have to suffer a death threat for writing a book, drawing a picture, or saying something you don't like.

Don't poke a bear with a stick - it never ends well.

No one's poking anyone. We are provoking, yes, but with words.

And the people we're provoking are humans, which means they're capable of coming up with fair retaliation -- like, say, blaspheming against our respective religions -- instead of killing people.

Because many religions (particularly christianity and islam) actively seek to impose their worldview on those who do not share their beliefs. It is a key part of their belief system that they expressly do not respect the fact that I don't believe in their god. According to some of them I should be put to death for not converting to their irrational worship. Adults who believe you should respect their imaginary friends and will hurt you if you don't is not something I'm particularly inclined to respect. If they keep their crazy beliefs to themselves they'll never have a problem with me. But there always seem to be those who can't resist trying to convert the unbelievers by any means necessary.

Disrespecting their religious views just to get a rise out of them is counterproductive, and when someone gets hurt or killed those who are on the receiving end of the violence will act as though they are surprised by it.

Surprised? I don't think anyone is surprised at how crazy religious zealots get. That is also not a compelling argument for appeasing them or their crazy irrational beliefs.

Making some reasonable effort to show respect isn't always bad, but always respecting everyone's views is simply not possible. For example, I cannot show complete respect for a radical Christians's views that all adulterers should be stoned to death without disrespecting another radical Christian's views that the old testament laws don't apply anymore and that stoning adulterers is wrong. Incompatibl

It offends their religious sensibilities. I'll never understand why respecting someone else's religious views (or lack there of) is such a bad thing?

Then why is it that every single other religion has grown out of these stupidities and don't resort to violence in the 21st century.

Why is it that I can make cartoons of Jesus all I want, make fun of Buddha, criticize Joseph Smith (founder of Mormonism), declare that the big bang was a myth, prove Zeus never existed, and any other religious symbol other than those related to Islam and various small, irrational cults and have nothing more than angry letters?

There is a difference between respect and cowardice. And my respect ends when a religion tramples over human rights to make a point.

Every other religion has earned the right to have respect other than Islam and a few small cults. They don't trample over human rights and don't resort to violence. Why Islam gets a free pass is only because of cowardice.

Why would a non Muslim want to draw a picture of Prophet Mohamed in a wrong manner (if not to anger Muslims) you can call it freedom but Freedom is a trial from God and to miss use it is to be answerable to God and we have no right to kill or hurt such a person

We do it to express our freedom. You need to respect that we feel the same way about freedom of speech in the West as Muslims feel about Mohammed. We are willing to protect it at any cost. In all honesty if the Muslim extremists didn't get their knickers in a bunch every time somebody drew a half-assed picture of Mohammed there wouldn't even be an issue. However since they feel the need to censor us in our own countries we feel the need to prove that we still have the freedom to ridicule anyone.

My parents taught me that sticking my hand into a fire was hot, that I'd get hurt and that I shouldn't do it. Surely these Facebook taunters learned that too?

That's not being prudent. That's being a coward.

Surely you're not suggesting that we relinquish our right to draw WHATEVER THE FUCK WE PLEASE, because someone is threatening us with bodily harm if we draw something that displeases them.

It is only natural for people to resist when their most basic right of self-expression is violated.

At this point, western democracies need to make a stand against the violence of radical Islam, even if it takes such comical form. If we fold any time they threaten us with violence, then we will live according to THEIR rules in no time.

Join the real world, take your head out of your ass and looking around you - if you do that you'll see most Muslims are normal people like you and me just getting on with their day who don't give a toss about insignificant little bigots like you.

So asserting my constitutional rights makes me a bigot now?

What does the rant above make you?

Oh, and while we're on the subject of religious violence, just how many gun-toting Christians are there in the US?

Plenty. Yet if I draw a Jesus taking a load in the face, I can walk down the street reasonably sure that I'm not going to get shot.

All that says is that either Jesus isn't as revered an icon in your neighbourhood than Mohammed is in a Muslim one.

So what you are saying is that the appropriate course of action to take when someone offends you is to kill the person.

No, actually what it says is that people here understand that there is a big step between emotion and action.

And let's pretend while you're walking down the street, a Muslim person runs up to you, pointing at you and accusing you of being a pedophile, say. By your argument, you'd not be allowed to take offence at that...

I'm allowed to take as much offense as I please. I am not, however, allowed to behead him (or do any harm to him/her) for doing so.

The fact that you can't perceive the difference makes you one or more of the following:

Good point. Radical Muslims should really be more tolerant of those who do not follow their religion, and are therefore not bound by its rules.

Grow up, boy. When you get to middle-age like me you begin to understand that life is about tolerating and making allowances for others and not letting insignificant bits of crap ruin your day.

We're still talking about the Muslims who get so worked up over a cartoon that they want to kill someone over it, right?

Join the real world, take your head out of your ass and looking around you - if you do that you'll see most Muslims are normal people like you and me just getting on with their day who don't give a toss about insignificant little bigots like you.

Any Muslim who is a normal person like me won't give a shit about any cartoon. Anyone making threats over a cartoon simply needs to learn not to take themselves so seriously.

So they don't like caricatures of Mohammed, is it *REALLY* that important you somehow earn the right to be able to do it?

Yes. That is part of freedom of speech it isn't the freedom to say "lets all be happy in our current situation, the USA is the best and Obama/Bush are gods!" that isn't freedom, every country gives you the "freedom" to say good things. Freedom of speech means that I can say fuck Obama, Bush, the USA, the UN, Jesus, Moses, Mohamed, Buddha, The war on terror, communism, capitalism, socialism, etc. that is freedom of speech.

Why is it that Muslims get a free pass? You know what? I could draw a cartoon of Jesus screwing Moses and I doubt I'd get any thing more than a few laughs, a few angry e-mails and such. If I push it forth I/might/ get a death threat. I'm sure as hell not going to get a car laden with explosives parked outside my house though. I'm not going to get killed, I'm going to get perhaps a boycott of any further art I draw, etc.

And how about if a group of Muslims in Afghanistan started posting cartoons on Facebook of injured American or British soldiers? Are you going to sit back and laugh about it because "It's their right" to do so?

I wouldn't laugh at it, I would respect their right to free speech and do nothing. I don't believe in censorship of any kind, they have their right to post what they want, I post what I want, if I don't like it -gasp- I don't have to look at it.

Grow up, boy. When you get to middle-age like me you begin to understand that life is about tolerating and making allowances for others and not letting insignificant bits of crap ruin your day.

So we should "tolerate" the fact that Islam can get a free pass of criticism but every other religion we can do whatever?

Join the real world, take your head out of your ass and looking around you - if you do that you'll see most Muslims are normal people like you and me just getting on with their day who don't give a toss about insignificant little bigots like you.

Yeah, most are. However, their leaders are advocating religious violence. I don't see the current Pope saying we should have a mass genocide of non-catholics but yet Islamic leaders are basically saying the same thing.

Oh, and while we're on the subject of religious violence, just how many gun-toting Christians are there in the US?

I don't see Christians making death threats and attempting to carry them out on cartoonists who make fun of Jesus or any other biblical figure.

In short, out of all the religions in the world at the present age, it is only Islam that advocates violence for such stupid, insignificant things as cartoons.

I'll jump in since I'm WELL past the age where I could be described as a "boy" you condescending prick.

When you get to middle-age like me you begin to understand that life is about tolerating and making allowances for others and not letting insignificant bits of crap ruin your day.

Bullshit. There are sometimes things that cannot under any circumstances be tolerated. There are some world views that simply cannot peacefully coexist. There are those who will attempt to conquer, destroy, enslave and humiliate. I should just tolerate this? I think you are the one who needs a dose of the real world.

Oscar Wilde actually said it best "everything in moderation, including moderation". That applies to tolerance too.

I simply don't believe that the right to attack someone else's religious beliefs is particularly important

The right to freedom of speech and expression is important.

This includes the right to "attack someone's religious beliefs", because it cannot be excluded without ruining the whole concept, and because "attack" is so vague and ill-defined as to be effectively a blanket restrictions.

Muslims are "offended" by any depiction of Muhammad. This includes historical representations used for educational purposes (have a look at all the death threats etc in talk page history of WP article for Muhammad sometime). They are also, apparently, offended by "revealing dresses" that modern western women wear (e.g. exposing legs or navel...).

Someone, somewhere, might be offended by me shaving my beard (that'd be Muslims too, actually - at least Salafi consider shaving beard to be haraam), or by the fact that my t-shirt is blue.

Clearly, the only reasonable approach is unrestricted freedom of expression.

No, actually, it was done to demonstrate our ideals and our courage. We value freedom of speech at least as much as they value Mohammed, and we are willing to stand up for that belief. We are not willing to let their threats silence us.

I don't see how it's that important to feel the need to launch some kind of protest to force it down the throats of everyone,

How is it being forced down anyone's throat? Unless something very strange is going on, you chose to click on this story. You could've ignored it. Nothing's stopping those Muslims from completely fucking ignoring the entire thing, and in fact, it would be much more in line with the reason behind that particular religious restriction if they did. (You're not supposed to draw Mohammed so that people don't start worshiping Mohammed -- that was never likely in this case, and getting so worked up about it is focusing on the man instead of the deity, which is exactly what that restriction was supposed to prevent in the first place.)

If Muslims want to prove they've grown up and are ready to enter the modern world, they'll ignore this, or respond by drawing Jesus. If they instead censor, riot, and kill, they'll prove they're stuck in the dark ages.

Sorry, but if it was caricatures of disabled people or soldiers or killed in Afghanistan, then everyone would be up-in-arms about it and someone would be offended by it.

Figuratively up-in-arms, not literally. That's the difference.

Oh, and they wouldn't be banned at the ISP level in the US.

I'm all for Free Speech but I'm more for people demonstrating some intelligence & compassion

So you're for free speech as long as everyone's careful not to offend anyone? That shows a profound lack of intelligence on your part.

inciting hatred is pathetic!

No, inciting hatred is impossible. No one can be forced by mere words to do anything they don't want to. What's pathetic is that mere words and pictures are enough for these people to willingly begin to hate.